Why doesn't Vallicella take his own advice and extend "a little Christian charity" toward the Christians who are criticizing the now-apostate Sudduth, rather than blogging on and on about what meanies they are?

ps. The reason for the 'atheism' tag is that paganism amongst moderns is just 'spiritual' atheism.

5
comments:

I don't think Valicella would deny Sudduth is an apostate, certainly not where Christianity is concerned. And I think his references to 'Christian Charity' don't have so much to do with the post he's discussing when he says that, so much as what went down on Triablogue. I have no problem with calling a fool a fool when warranted, even if I try be patient sometimes. I do have a problem for some of what goes on at Triablogue, or at least what can go on when things get heated.

While I have encountered the name Sudduth over the years, I have utterly no idea who he is. And, I'd have had no idea that he is now blissing-out on Lord Krishna, except that Vallicella keeps blogging about what great meanies are those Christians who are critical of his apostasy.

“I don't think Valicella would deny Sudduth is an apostate, certainly not where Christianity is concerned. ”

Really? So, the apostrophes around ‘apostate’ were not scare-quotes, but … hmm … emphasis-quotes? He’s one of those people who, had he written that sentence with pen and paper, would have both underlined the word and put quote marks around it?

“And I think his references to 'Christian Charity' don't have so much to do with the post he's discussing when he says that, so much as what went down on Triablogue.”

Really? His call for more charity by the Triabloguers just happens to be in this post, rather than in the one in which he links to and (to coin a phrase) churlishly accuses the Triabloguers of churlishness? While this seems to me an odd way to go about it, perhaps it’s all related to that ‘quest’ – rather than conclusions – which he assures his reader is what ‘mature’ religion is all about. Why, one is tempted – purely out of charity, mind you – to speculate that the offered assurance may even be meant as a conclusion (however ill-founded).

“I have no problem with calling a fool a fool when warranted, even if I try be patient sometimes. I do have a problem for some of what goes on at Triablogue …”

To put it more crudely, the Triabloguers, at least some of them, are also fools. Or, at best, with utterly no sense of proportion?

So, the apostrophes around ‘apostate’ were not scare-quotes, but … hmm … emphasis-quotes?

I'll fire from the hip and hazard a guess - I think Bill has a low regard for words like 'apostate', because he apparently subscribes to an idea that no position is unthinkable unless he judges it to be obviously self-refuting. It's like someone referring to Elton John as a "sodomite". It's not that they doubt he engages in sodomy. They're just (probably) rolling their eyes at the very term.

His call for more charity by the Triabloguers just happens to be in this post, rather than in the one in which he links to and (to coin a phrase) churlishly accuses the Triabloguers of churlishness?

Yes. He called out the Triabloggers in a direct post, he wrote another post on the very same topic - I don't think it's that crazy to suspect that he's taking aim at them yet again.

To put it more crudely, the Triabloguers, at least some of them, are also fools. Or, at best, with utterly no sense of proportion?

Well, yes, some of them are.

Hey, I could be wrong about Bill's target. I'm just saying how I'm reading him on this one. I think they misfired and reacted badly to Sudduth's conversion. He's certainly an apostate by any common sense of the word.

And you can't see that the sort of person you've described *is* a fool ... and probably a(n intellectually) dangerous one, at that?

"... because he apparently subscribes to an idea that no position is unthinkable unless he judges it to be obviously self-refuting."

He certainly doesn't seem to care that some idea can be (and has been) refuted by argument. He's all "let's play with this idea". This is a whole different ball of wax from arguing that the argument(s) said to have refuted the idea don't quite do the job they are said or thought to have done.

“… I don't think it's that crazy to suspect that he's taking aim at them [the Triabloguers] yet again.”

For a man who prides himself on his clarity, this was a terribly murky way to take aim.

“[Sudduth is] certainly an apostate by any common sense of the word.”Unless Vallicella rolls his eyes at use of the word?